tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 22 12:22:30 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 15:22:29 -0500
- Encoding: 57 TEXT
~mark wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:42:02 -0800
>>From: [email protected]
>
>>Can you <-DI'> in this manner?
>
>>vIlegh vIleghDI'
>
>>I'll see it when I see it.
I wanted to wait until a BG commented on this KLBC labeled post before
adding my commentary. I make the leap now that the main Grammarian has
commented.
>I don't see a problem with that. For some reason I prefer the order the
>other way around very slightly over this way, but that's just my style; so
>far as I know the order can go either way. It looks reasonable to me.
>'Course, it also means "I saw it when I saw it," which is a less useful
>meaning.
The reason *I* prefer it the other way around relates to typical Klingon
sentence structure. In English, I can say, "Tomorrow, I will see it," or "I
will see it tomorrow." In Klingon, I would really only say, "wa'leS
vIlegh." The time stamp comes first, given the rule that generally, any
noun which is not subject or object gets stuffed at the beginning of a
sentence.
Basically, the environment for the action is usually set up before the
action is stated, so {vIleghDI'} is acting a lot like {wa'leS}. It is a
form of time stamp. As such, it really belongs at the beginning of the
sentence.
I would not put this down as an explicit rule. It is just a matter of
style, but it strikes me as a fairly strong matter of style. I would
personally NEVER write {vIlegh vIleghDI'}. I would ALWAYS write {vIleghDI'
vIlegh.}
>>I want to state that something will be seen in the future. But at an
unknown
>>time. (Since I can't find a noun for 'future' or an abverbial for
'later', I'm
>>sort-of stuck.)
>
>Yeah; I think an adverb for "generally in the future" is on the Okrand
>wish-list.
I think it would be a nice luxury, but I don't feel like we are overly
crippled by it. It just makes for a wee bit more of a challenge.
vIleghDI' vIlegh 'ej wej vIleghta'.
>>r'Hul
>
>~mark
charghwI'